Royal college supports promotion of breast feeding
- Harvey Marcovitch, Officer for press and public relations,
- Margaret Lynch, Chairwoman, advocacy committee,
- Keith Dodd, Honorary secretary.
- Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, London W1N 6DE
- Institute of Child Health, University College London, London WC1N 1EH
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Paediatrics, Maulana Azad Medical College, New Delhi 110 002, India
- Breastfeeding Network, PO Box 11126, Paisley PA2 8YB
- Royal Institution of Great Britain, 21 Albemarle Street, London W1X 4BS
- * James Rothman is an independent research consultant who provides consultancy services to the Infant and Dietetic Foods Association, for which he is paid. He also advises the Infant Food Manufacturers Association
EDITOR—In its submission to the Acheson inquiry on poverty and health (the findings of which are expected to be published in autumn 1998) the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health proposed interventions to increase the number of women breast feeding their babies. At the college's 1998 annual general meeting Unicef accepted an invitation to set up a stand at the trade exhibition to provide information on its baby friendly initiative, which was designed to help establish breast feeding and was launched in 1991. Also at that meeting members and fellows reaffirmed their unequivocal support for the practice and promotion of breast feeding in a policy statement. This was policy states that “women should be encouraged to practice exclusive breastfeeding for the first 4-6 months of their infant's life. Thereafter, infants should be enabled to breastfeed while receiving appropriate and adequate weaning food for as long as this meets with their mothers' wishes and convenience.1
Therefore, we were surprised and disappointed to read some of the sentiments expressed in the editorial by Costello and Sachdev on encouraging breast feeding which reminded doctors that manufacturers of infant milk substitutes may attempt to seek “endorsement by association” or “passivity towards their products.2“ They cited as examples the failure of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to join the interagency group on monitoring breast feeding and the fact that the college accepts research funds from manufacturers of breast milk substitutes. In fact, the college declined to join the group not because it was opposed to its …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Transforming translation
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Bringing Nightingale down to size
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Avoid antimuscarinic drugs in people with dementia
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Re: Strengthening primary health care: Related to the integration of medical training, community service need and health administration
Published 29 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27